United States v. Anthony Palomino-Coronado, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19319

Nineteen-year-old Anthony Palomino-Coronado was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) for using a minor (B.H., age 7) to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction after investigators recovered a deleted photograph from his cell phone showing a man vaginally penetrating a child.
Medical and forensic interviews showed B.H. had a torn hymen and infection consistent with prior penetration; B.H. initially gave mixed statements but later identified herself and Palomino-Coronado in the explicit photo.
Forensic extraction recovered the sexually explicit image (deleted) and many other non-sexual images of Palomino-Coronado and at least three non-sexual images of B.H.
At trial, a child-forensic interviewer testified that an earlier police interview was coercive and that her own interview elicited disclosures identifying the photograph.
The jury convicted and the district court sentenced Palomino-Coronado to 30 years (statutory maximum). He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence on the § 2251(a) specific-intent element (purpose to produce a visual depiction); the Fourth Circuit reviews sufficiency de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government proved the § 2251(a) requirement that defendant acted for the purpose of producing a visual depiction	Gov: the deleted explicit photo, defendant’s frequent phone photography, and the photo’s focus on genitals permit a reasonable inference of intent to produce child pornography	Palomino-Coronado: evidence shows only that he engaged in sexual activity and later took one photo; no direct evidence of intent, instructions, recording equipment, or multiple explicit images	Court: Reversed — insufficient evidence that producing a visual depiction was a purpose of the sexual conduct; single deleted photo and cell-phone use alone do not satisfy the specific-intent requirement

United States v. Lebowitz, 676 F.3d 1000 (11th Cir. 2012) (direct evidence of planning and recording equipment can show purpose to produce depiction)
United States v. Morales-de Jesus, 372 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004) (instructions, concealment, and use of recording equipment support inference of purpose)
United States v. Ortiz-Graulau, 526 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2008) (large number of sexually explicit photos can permit strong inference of purpose)
United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122 (3d Cir. 1999) (taking many photos can be consistent with an intent other than producing sexually explicit material)
United States v. Sirois, 87 F.3d 34 (2d Cir. 1996) (direction of subjects and movement to facilitate recording supports finding of purpose)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (reversal for insufficiency must be confined to clear prosecution failures)